Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Legal Purchase of Government Policy


One person, one vote.
One super-rich person, one vote, but troublingly greater influence.
Despite the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, this really isn't equal representation, IMHO.

Most folks conclude that the Super PAC use of influence is crooked as a dog's hind leg.


The 9 biggest PACs are primarily funded by just a few rich individuals, yet they have great influence in our country's governance.

Super PACs emerged from the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2011. PACs can legally raise unlimited amounts of money. They can legally spend that money on messages supporting the election or defeat of federal candidates.  This isn't money spent on research and analysis for the benefit of the nation, this is just advertising constructed to sell, to persuade, to inordinately influence.

From Forbes/Business:
"Super PACs are responsible for a new flood of secret and unlimited cash infiltrating our political system. They have become far more important and influential than the candidates themselves or the voters, and have fundamentally changed American politics. 
To date, there are 328 super PACs that have raised about $99 million and spent about $48 million in the 2012 election cycle, $42.5 million of which has been spent on the presidential race." 

The super pacs have more influence at election time than the candidates do.  That's a troubling possibility.

Update:  10/2016
2016 financial activity for super PACs
2,331  number of super PACs
$1,107,816,814  total raised by super PACs
$734,282,837  total spent by super PACs
That's money spent on advertising, smear tactics, biased recounting of history, and inaccurate representation.  There's no objectivity and no value in the actions, only detrimental misrepresentation and division in the nation.  If you're curious how it happened, this is a centerpiece.

No comments: